Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 452 posts

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#191

Post by jjulius »

donatj wrote: post #185
Barrin92 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I feel... uneasy about the idea. Are games art? Yes, which is precisely why they shouldn't be treated like a commodity. Nobody is telling artists what art they can make, what the initiative is about making sure public continues to have access to works of art. Which is normal for everything that's considered to be of cultural relevance. Film studios and novelists don't get to burn libraries down the moment someone st…

How do you feel about art that changes over time? Temporal pieces. Plays that were only ever to be performed once?

Those are cool! They're also designed that way for a specific art-based reasoning - the temporality often has a deeper meaning.

Games designed for limited play, however, are designed that way for the sake of profit churn.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#192

Post by chickenzzzzu »

danlitt wrote: post #173
chickenzzzzu wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is literally every industry now. Shall we "regulate" all industries to be like this, then? Is that achievable? Shall we require Netflix to release server builds so that you can access their content indefinitely because you paid for a subscription at some point? "That's not what this is about. Ok, where are we heading then?

I mean, what you describe sounds pretty good. It sounds like you think it's not feasible for some reason (other than political will). Do you want to elaborate on that?

It certainly is feasible. Requiring it to happen though, would result in some interesting economic dynamics, I believe.

We currently exist in a two tier global economy where some countries are required to follow a strict set of laws, and others basically make their own. To be clear, I am saying that Russia and China do not care at all about piracy and IP theft and so on.

As you increase the rules that Western companies must follow, you run the risk that some day your only options will be non-Western companies, and that may or may not be a good thing. This is what has happened with manufacturing, and it was good for a while until it wasn't. It still is quite good in some pockets though, like batteries and solar.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#193

Post by conductr »

throw10920 wrote: post #168
qznc wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So don’t even try because it might be bad?

Nowhere did I say or imply that - did you respond to the wrong comment by accident?

It’s kind of implied by your argument. All these concerns apply to every piece of legislation that gets concocted. What makes this topic especially effected by one’s distrust in the government’s ability?

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#194

Post by chickenzzzzu »

pyrale wrote: post #186
chickenzzzzu wrote: post #139

I work for a game company. I am ardently opposed to this idea. All you will end up with, in the best case scenario that isn't even guaranteed to happen, is extremely mediocre games for which you will have the server executable along with the client. Whether you like it or not, thanks to piracy and competition (and yes I've heard Gabe Newell's quote on piracy), server authoritative video games that are eventually turn…

> If you like video games so much but don't like the terms of serivce and price, have you tried making your own? No need to go that far, there's plenty of games sold with better terms of service than the ones your company offers. Forcing companies to be upfront about this aspect will help concerned consumers choose these instead of yours.

And which company is that?

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#195

Post by shkkmo »

PoshBreeze wrote: post #179
artemonster wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowling Larian I dont think that will be the case. what are you basing your assumptions upon? there is already extensive modding for bg3

Larian are no longer involved with development of BG3: https://www.ign.com/articles/wizards-of-the-coast-not-to-bla... EDIT: Updated Link. It seems they've added free patches and won't be working on BG4.

That announcement is about BG4 not BG3.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#196

Post by braiamp »

dijit wrote: post #14
braiamp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this passes, then such stipulations become illegal, since they can't force you to create a product that would fly on the face of the law.

That probably won’t be true, or we will lose the ability to license altogether. Here’s hoping though!

The thing about licenses is that it's overratted. No licensor makes you unable to continue supporting the product, since the licensee will make sure to include a provision that all copies of the licensed software have the ability of use the licensed work.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#197

Post by perching_aix »

umvi wrote: post #113

Vote with your wallet, there are thousands of games that don't do shady stuff.

Or just sign the initiative, so that you maybe don't have to abstain to achieve this goal? I don't understand this mentality.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#198

Post by mrangle »

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #139

I work for a game company. I am ardently opposed to this idea. All you will end up with, in the best case scenario that isn't even guaranteed to happen, is extremely mediocre games for which you will have the server executable along with the client. Whether you like it or not, thanks to piracy and competition (and yes I've heard Gabe Newell's quote on piracy), server authoritative video games that are eventually turn…

Your games are mediocre now.

It's better to have a mediocre game that one can play, than an exceptional game that one can't.

You're free to make games now, and yet it's most often hard to justify money for a game that isn't a skin on a version of solitaire (on sale).

That's how bad your industry is. So, please, with your warning. As if you have work product to bargain with.

You act as if your industry is busy. Outside of a couple of exceptional studios, and infinite sequels on literally only a few popular formulas (whether or not these formulas are good is another discussion), your industry is largely non-productive. If we are utilizing your metric of good vs mediocre.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#199

Post by areyourllySorry »

netr0ute wrote: post #174
simion314 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Vote with your wallet I bought Minecraft from Mojang, years later I am forced to setup a Microsoft account to play the game, or risk downloading a cracked version. They did not offer a refund. Minecraft is a video game where you need to login even if you do not play online. (maybe things changed , I think this MS account thing was a few years back, it worked for my account but I read of people having big issues beca…

I don't remember this being the case, you could reuse your old MC purchase when they made the transition over.

the mojang to minecraft.net transition, yeah. the minecraft.net to microsoft transition, no. https://youtu.be/rUFDRAEducI

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#200

Post by chickenzzzzu »

artemonster wrote: post #154
chickenzzzzu wrote: post #139

I work for a game company. I am ardently opposed to this idea. All you will end up with, in the best case scenario that isn't even guaranteed to happen, is extremely mediocre games for which you will have the server executable along with the client. Whether you like it or not, thanks to piracy and competition (and yes I've heard Gabe Newell's quote on piracy), server authoritative video games that are eventually turn…

ah, yes, for example quake3 an extremely mediocre game that has server executable along with the client? what is this argument even about?

Ok, so your idea is that we will require all companies to release server and client builds, and also the source code as well (?), at some clearly defined point in the future, if they decide to terminate the live service?

Will we also require the same of the smart fridge companies? Will we also require the same of companies that don't sell live services, such as toilets?

Post reply on HN